TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 1013X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lack jurisdiction and the same are hereby quashed. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA Nos. 5969 to 5974/Del/2013, C.O. Nos. 101 to 106/DEL/2014 - - - Dated:- 18-3-2015 - Shri N.K. Saini And Shri George George K. JJ For the Appellant : Smt. Poonam, Khaira Sidhu, CIT,DR For the Respondent : Sh. Arvind Kumar, Advocate ORDER Per Bench: 1. These appeals, at the instance of the Revenue and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee, arise out of six separate orders of CIT(A), all dated 23.08.2013. The relevant assessment years are 2003-04 to 2008-09. 2. In Revenue s appeals, identical grounds are raised except for variation in figures. Two effective grounds raised in Revenue s appeals relate to: i) Whether the CIT (A) was justified in deleting the disallowances of expenditure made by the AO; . ii) Whether the CIT (A) was justified in deleting the additions made on account of unexplained purchases u/s 69C of the Act. 3. In the assessee s cross objections, several grounds are raised. The majority of the grounds relate to the issue of challenging the initiation of proceedings u/s 153C of the Act. It was submitted by the Ld. DR that the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s u/s 153C of the Act against the assessee is placed at page 5 of the Paper Book filed by the assessee. The satisfaction Note recorded by the AO reads as follows: Satisfaction Note for Issuing Notice u/s 153C of the I.T. Act, 1961 in the case of M/s Consultancy Integrated Services Pvt. Ltd. RZL-26, West Sagarpur, Shanker Park, New Delhi AACCC 1012 F for AY 2003-04 to 2008-09.. 05/07/2010 Documents at pages 48-75 of Annexure A - 30 seized by the Party R-2 from the premises at F-6/5, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, during the course of search conducted u/s 132 of the IT Act, 1961, on 20.10.2008 in the case of Sh. B.K. Dhingra, Smt. Poonam Dhingra, M/s. Madhusudan Buildcon Pvt. Ltd have been found to belong to M/s. Consultancy Integrated Services Pvt. Ltd. RZL-26, West Sagarpur, Shanker Park, New Delhi which has not been covered u/s 132 of the IT Act, 1961. Accordingly, in terms of provisions of section 153C of the Act, notices u/s 153C are hereby issued for the AY 2003-04 to 2008-09 in the case of M/s. Consultancy Integrated Services Pvt. Ltd. The case was centralized in the Central Circle-17, New Delhi vide orders dated 05/Jan/10 of CIT-I, New Delhi. DCIT, Central Circle - 17, Ne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. We have also taken into consideration the written submissions filed by the ld. DR on 27.02.2012. It is manifest from the assessment orders for the years under consideration that a search was carried out u/s 132 of the Act on Sh. B.K. Dhingra, Smt. Poonam Dhingra M/s Madhusudan Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. and in such search proceedings, some incriminating documents belonging to the assessee were found which led to the making of the instant assessments u/s 153C of the Act. In order to properly appreciate the contention made by the ld. AR on this score, we consider it expedient to consider the so-called satisfaction recorded by the AO. There is no dispute that the satisfaction has been recorded for all the years under consideration in mutatis mutandis similar manner. For the sake of reference and on a representative basis, we are reproducing the satisfaction recorded for the A.Y. 2003-04, as under: Satisfaction Note for Issuing Notice u/s 153C of the I.T. Act, 1961 in the case of M/s Tanveer Finance Leasing Ltd., WZ 13, Street No. 18, Krishna Park, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi, PAN No. for A.Y. 2003-04 to 2008 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t certain cases in which the assessments were framed u/s 153C of the Act on some entities pursuant to search on Sh. B.K. Dhingra, Smt. Poonam Dhingra M/s Madhusudan Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. in identical circumstances, came up for consideration before the Tribunal. In all these cases similar objections were raised by the assessee to the effect that no proper satisfaction was recorded by the AO of such assessees. The Tribunal has disposed of such cases including Tanvir Collections Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (ITA No. 2421/Del/2014), DCIT vs. Inlay Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 4197/D/2012) and more recently DCIT vs. G.S. Findings Investment Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 5980/D/2013) by uniformly holding, inter alia, as under : - i. The recording of satisfaction by the AO having jurisdiction over the persons searched is an essential and pre-requisite condition for giving jurisdiction to the AO of the other person . ii. Such satisfaction is required to be recorded by the AO of the persons searched and not the other person . iii. Assessments made without recording proper satisfaction are null and void. iv. Even if the AO of the persons searched and the other person is same, it is only the AO o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reminded of the basic principle enshrined in Article 265 of the Constitution that no tax can be collected without authority of law. There can be no assessment in the absence of a proper jurisdiction of the authority. The question of jurisdiction is a very important aspect, which cannot be equated with a technical issue. Similar contention raised by the ld. DR has been elaborately dealt with by the Tribunal in the case of Tanvir Collections P. Ltd. (supra). We, therefore, do not approve this contention. 14. The contention of the ld. DR that the hearing of the instant appeals be blocked because the request for the constitution of special bench in Konnar Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (ITA no. 4141/Del/2012 etc.) is pending consideration, is not acceptable. It can be noticed that the tribunal has uniformally decided the issue in the manner as stated above and there is no conflicting decision on the set of facts which are under consideration. Further, the ld. AR has submitted that the issue in the case of Konnar Enterprises Ltd. is entirely different and has no bearing to the facts of the instant case. 15. The next contention urged by the ld. DR is that the Tribunal in some other cases ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
